Cp3 is the better player. As a matter of fact a lot of Pg's have been better than Stockton Payton, Kidd, Nash, KJ. But I'd still take Stockton because he was nearly as good as any of those guys and he was consistently excellent for 20 years.
Stockton was smarter and better floor general, better defender, much more efficient scorer, mentally tough as nails.
CP3 does better two things - scores a bit more points at a lower efficiency, and is a bit better rebounder, at everything else he is inferior to Stock. Mentally its not even comparable, Stockton would be ashamed to be such flopping drama queen as CP3.
Also CP3 hardly has "alpha mentality", and in a team with Malone he would be a second banana in any case. How would Stockton do as the best player on the team we will never know, therefore its irrational to discard possibility he would be decent at it, especially considering his high BBIQ and toughness.
but what he's saying is, which makes a lot of sense, is taht currently CP3 does not match up to stockton (true), but he has the potential to exceed stockton's play if he keeps growing as a player
How much more is he going to grow as a player ? Most would already say that Paul has peaked and numbers wise seems better than peak Stockton.
They already have comparable accolades, which Paul seems to have an edge there too. The only reason this is much of debate is because of Stockton's amazing longevity, which while impressive, doesn't necessarily mean he was the better player either.
although playing the very same position i regard them as different types of players... Paul is more oriented on scoring whereas Stockton was a true point guard... so these two can't really be compared to each other, at least, for me
John Stockton. Not by a mile, but he was a better passer, better defender and efficient scorer. he isnt seen as a great leader because he never talked to the refs and other team. but why is CP3 a great leader only because he flops and bitches about everything nonstop?